According to Bloomberg's account, prosecutors said in opening arguments that
Grace "chose profits at the expense of people’s health and chose
avoiding liability over disclosing the health hazards to the
government."

The local paper, The Missoulian, is providing daily multimedia coverage,
as well as an up-to-date time line and links to key documents. Caveat
emptor: The Missoulian makes little pretense of objectivity, accusing
Grace of killing more than 200 people and sickening hundreds of others
when its mining and processing of vermiculite allegedly released
asbestos particles into the air. The New York Times also offers some useful background on the case.

IP
In Rambus's IP War, It Was an Especially Manic Monday
To
technology geeks, Rambus is best known for patenting technology in the
early 1990s to speed up how data is extracted from memory chips. But to
us, the company is best known for its nonstop patent infringement
battles with the Federal Trade Commission and a bevy of chipmakers.
(We've previously covered the litigation here and here.) On Monday, Rambus got a little bad news and a lot of good in its multifront IP litigation war.

The FTC had claimed in a suit that dates back to 2002 that Rambus
deceived an industry standards-setting organization by not disclosing
planned DRAM patents, thus setting itself up for monopoly profits once
standards on the evolving technology were set. In their brief in opposition to the FTC's petition for certiorari,
Rambus's lawyers at Munger and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
argued that the FTC had not proven that the company's actions excluded
its rivals or created a monopoly on the technology.

Wilmer's Douglas Melamed and Paul Wolfson and Gregory Stone and Steve
Perry of Munger wrote Rambus's Supreme Court brief. It probably won't
surprise you to hear that Hynix and one of the other chipmakers Rambus
is tussling with in California submitted amicus briefs supporting the
FTC's petition. Hynix's brief was written by Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe's Robert Freitas; Robert Skitol of Drinker Biddle & Reath
wrote the amicus brief for Nanya.

Dealbook has an excerpted transcript of Thain's testimony
from last week, in which the former high-flying Merrill chief refused
to answer questions about bonuses for all but the five highest-paid
Merrill executives. Thain's lawyer, Andrew Levander of Dechert, told
Cuomo's office that his client was directed not to discuss individual
bonuses by Bank of America's counsel in the bonuses probe. (BofA is
represented by Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton partner Lewis
Liman, who forwarded our call for comment to the bank, which did not
respond.)

Levander told us that Thain is doing everything he can to cooperate
with investigators, but that Bank of America has intervened to ask New
York state supreme court justice Bernard Fried--who is hearing the AG's
motion to compel Thain to disclose bonus information--to keep the
Merrill bonuses confidential. The bank has until March 4 to file
papers, and the attorney general’s office response is due March 11. The
motion is scheduled to be argued March 13.

--Ross Todd

WHITE-COLLAR
Galveston Federal District Court Judge Samuel Kent Pleads Guilty, Resigns from Bench
Judge
Samuel Kent has spared the federal court system--and his alleged
victims--the spectacle of a trial on criminal sexual abuse charges. On
Monday, with jury selection slated to begin, Kent admitted to
nonconsensual sexual contact with two female court employees, pled
guilty to one count of obstructing the investigation of the case
against him, and resigned from his judgeship. "Judge Kent believes this
compromise settlement is best for all involved, the complainants and
their families, Judge Kent and his family, and the court and judicial
system," read a statement issued by Kent's defense lawyer, Richard
DeGuerin of Houston's DeGuerin & Dickson.

Rusty Hardin of Houston's Hardin & Associates, who represents the
court employee who first reported allegations against Kent, told The
National Law Journal that his client is "very relieved" by the plea
deal, although he added that she would wait until Kent's sentencing to
make a statement. The client, Cathy McBroom, alleged that Kent touched
her under her clothing twice and made obscene statements to her during
the course of her six years of employment with him. As for civil actions
against Kent, Hardin told the NLJ, "We never really planned that and
have not talked about that. We wanted to keep that off the table so as
not to undermine her as a witness," he said.

According to the Chronicle, Kent faces up to 20 years in prison on the
obstruction charge, although prosecutors have reportedly suggested he
be sentenced to three years.

What he found is tantalizing: In the late 1990s Antigua's government
appointed Stanford to an advisory board charged with regulating the
island's banks--including Stanford’s own Stanford Financial Group.
Guess who bankrolled the advisory board? Yep--Stanford, who was also
extremely close to various Antiguan officials, particularly former
Antiguan prime minister Lester Bird. Meanwhile, for years "Sir Allen"
(he was knighted in Antigua in 2006) organized free "fact-finding"
trips for U.S. politicians to visit "vacation destinations," presumably
in the Caribbean.

Cassin concludes that these examples on their own probably don't
constitute FCPA violations. And FCPA may turn out to be the least of
Stanford's criminal problems. But as Cassin notes, Stanford still
hasn't been charged with criminal fraud. It's early in the
investigation, so the Antiguan connection may yet turn out to be
important.

CONTRACTS / ENTERTAINMENT
Mouse Hunt: Slumdog Producer Suing Disney Over Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?
Celador
International Ltd. was a big winner at Sunday night's Oscar ceremony.
The British production company's movie Slumdog Millionaire took home
eight Oscars, including the award for best motion picture of the year.
Here at the Litigation Daily, we don't pretend to be film critics
(although we sure did love George Clooney in Michael Clayton). But we
were intrigued to hear that Celador is not only a production company:
It's also a litigant!

Celador created and developed the game show Who Wants to Be a
Millionaire?, which first aired in the United Kingdom in 1998. The game
show has since been licensed to more than 50 countries and territories,
including the United States, where Walt Disney Co. holds the rights.
And therein lies a problem, according to Celador. In its five-year-old
Los Angeles federal district court suit against Disney, Celador alleges
that self-dealing among Disney subsidiaries, including ABC Network, has
cut the producer off from potential revenue streams for the program.

"In essence, Disney sits on both sides of the bargaining table in any
negotiation for the production rights to the series," Celador's
complaint argues. The company is represented by the Los Angeles office
of Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi. Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton's Martin Katz is leading Disney's defense team. Katz declined
our request for comment on the suit, which is scheduled to go to trial
in Los Angeles in May.

Disney better hope its lawyers fare better against Celador in court
than its movies did against Slumdog Millionaire at the Oscars.